2013 Supreme(SC) 1112
G.S.SINGHVI, K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
Rajeshwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Subrata Roy Sahara – Respondent
Judgement Key Points
- When a court monitors a criminal investigation, it has a responsibility to ensure the investigation proceeds in the right direction and that investigating officers are not intimidated or pressured by any person. [1000534820005]
- The Supreme Court's powers under Articles 129 and 142 in contempt matters are not restricted or limited by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or related rules, including the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court. [1000534820019][1000534820020][1000534820021] (!) (!)
- Non-compliance with provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act does not take away the Supreme Court's powers under Article 129. [1000534820021]
- Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in situations not adequately addressed by existing law. [1000534820022][1000534820023] (!) (!) (!)
- A contempt petition invoking Articles 129 and 142 to report difficulties in a court-monitored investigation, including intimidation of the investigating officer, is maintainable without the consent of the Attorney General. [1000534820024][1000534820017]
- Interference with a court-monitored investigation, such as by intimidating or pressuring the investigating officer, constitutes contempt of court. [1000534820005][1000534820016][1000534820017] (!)
- The court must protect investigating officers in monitored probes to uphold trust and confidence in the judicial process. [1000534820005][1000534820024]
- In a court-monitored investigation into serious irregularities like the 2G Spectrum Scam, no person or entity, including newspapers, shall interfere with the investigating agencies. [1000534820009] (!)
- Investigating officers must report threats or pressures to the monitoring court, which has a duty to facilitate the investigation and prevent derailment. [1000534820017][1000534820024]
- Allegations of attempts to obstruct a court-monitored probe through threats or campaigns against the officer warrant issuance of notices to show cause. [1000534820016][1000534820025]
JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. We may, at the outset, point out that, at this stage, we are only examining the maintainability of this contempt petition, on which arguments have been advanced by the learned senior counsels on either side. This contempt petition has been preferred under Article 129, 142 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
2. Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent, submitted that this contempt petition is not maintainable since it has been filed without the consent of the Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned in Section 15 of the Act. Learned senior counsel submitted that neither the order of this Court dated 06.05.2011 nor the notice dated 23.05.2011 gives any indication of the nature of the criminal contempt to be defended by the respondent. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even the notice dated 23.05.2011 does not comply with Rule 6 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. Learned senior counsel
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
